Cologne, January 2. Since the “corrections” made by Herr 
Oberprasident von Schaper and the explanations requested of the 
Rheinische Zeitung have been widely aired in the press, we take 
this occasion to state that our reply, which has been delayed 
only because a number of investigations have become necessary, 
will follow in the coming week. 

JUSTIFICATION OF THE CORRESPONDENT 
FROM THE MOSEL' 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 15, January 15, 1843] 

From the Mosel, January. Nos. 346 and 348 of the Rheinische 
Zeitung contain two articles of mine, one of which deals with the 
distress due to lack of firewood in the Mosel region, and the other 
the special sympathy of the Mosel population for the royal Cabinet 
Order of December 24, 1841, and for the resulting greater 
freedom of the press.'”? The latter article is written in coarse, and, 
if you like, even rude tones. Anyone who often has to hear directly 
the ruthless voice of want among the surrounding population easily 
loses the aesthetic tact by which his thoughts can be expressed in 
the most elegant and modest images. He may perhaps even 
consider it his political duty for a time to speak in public in the 
popular language of distress which in his native land he had no 
chance of forgetting. If, however, it is a question of proving that 
he speaks the truth, this can hardly mean proving literally every 
word, for in that case every summary would be untrue and, in 
general, it would be impossible to reproduce the meaning of a 
speech without repeating it word for word. Thus, for example, if 
it was said: “the cry of distress of the vine-growers was regarded 
as an insolent shrieking’, then to be fair one could demand only 
that this expressed an approximately correct equation. That is to 
say, it should be proved that there is an object which to a certain 
extent measures up to the summary description “insolent shriek- 
ing”, and makes this a not inappropriate description. If such a 
proof is given, the question is no longer one of truth but only of 
precision of language, and it would be hard to give more than a 
problematic judgment on extremely subtle nuances of linguistic 
expression. 

The occasion for the above remarks of mine was provided by 
two rescripts of Oberprasident von Schaper in No. 352 of the 

Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel 333 

Rheinische Zeitung, dated “Koblenz, December 15”, in which a 
number of questions are put to me concerning my two articles 
mentioned above. The delay in the publication of my reply is 
due primarily to the content of the questions themselves, since a 
newspaper correspondent, in transmitting with the utmost conscienti- 
ousness the voice of the people as he has heard it, is not at 
all obliged to be prepared to give an exhaustive and motivated 
account of the occasions and sources of his report. Apart from the 
fact that such work would require much time and resources, the 
newspaper correspondent can only consider himself as a small part 
of a complicated body, in which he freely chooses his particular 
function. While one is perhaps more concerned to depict his 
impression of the distressed state of the people obtained directly 
from their statements, another, who is a historian, will discuss the 
history of the situation which has arisen; the man of feeling will 
describe the distress itself; the economist will examine the means 
required for its abolition, this itself being one problem which can 
be treated from different aspects: sometimes more on a local scale, 
sometimes more in relation to the state as a whole, etc. 

Thus, with a lively press movement, the whole truth will be re- 
vealed, for if the whole appears at first only as the emergence of 
a number of different, individual points of view which—some- 
times intentionally, sometimes accidentally —develop side by side, 
in the end, however, this work of the press will have prepared for 
one of its participants the material out of which he will create 
a single whole. Thus, gradually, by means of a division of labour, 
the press arrives at the whole truth, not by one person doing 
everything, but by many doing a little. 

Another reason for the delay in my reply is that the editorial 
board of the Rheinische Zeitung required further particulars after 
my first report. Similarly, after the second and third reports, it 
asked for additional data, and also the present concluding report. 
Finally, the editorial board, on the one hand, demanded that I 
myself indicate my sources, and, on the other hand, held up the 
publication of my reports until it had itself, by some other means, 
received confirmation of my data. * 

Further, my reply appears anonymously. In this respect I am 
guided by the conviction that anonymity is an essential feature 
of the newspaper press, since it transforms the newspaper from an 
assemblage of many individual opinions into the organ of one 

* While confirming the above statements, we point out at the same time that the 

various mutually explanatory letters made it necessary for us to present a combined 
account. — Editorial Board of the Rheinische Zeitung. 

mind. The name of the author would separate one article from 
another as definitely as the body separates one person from 
another, and would thus completely suppress the function of 
being only a complementary part. Finally, anonymity ensures 
greater impartiality and freedom, not only of the author, but also 
of the public, since the latter sees not who is speaking, but what he 
is saying. Free from an empirical view of the author as a person, 
the public judges him solely by his intellectual personality. 

Since I do not mention my own name, in all my detailed reports 
I shall give the names of officials and communities only when 
quoting printed documents that are available in bookshops, or 
when mentioning names will harm no one. The press is obliged to 
reveal and denounce circumstances, but I am convinced that it 
should not denounce individuals, unless there is no other way of pre- 
venting a public evil or unless publicity already prevails throughout 
political life so that the German concept of denunciation no longer 
exists. 

In concluding these introductory remarks I think I am entitled 
to express the hope that the Herr Oberprasident, after acquaint- 
ing himself with my whole exposition, will be convinced of the 
purity of my intentions and will attribute even possible mistakes to an 
incorrect view of things, and not to an evil disposition. My exposi- 
tion itself should show whether I have deserved the serious accusa- 
tion of slander and of intent to excite dissatisfaction and discontent, 
even in the present case of continued anonymity, accusations 
which are the more painful coming from a man who is regarded 
with particularly great respect and affection in the Rhine Province. 

To facilitate a survey of my reply, I have set it out under the 
following headings: 

. The question of wood distribution. 

. The attitude of the Mosel region to the Cabinet Order of December 
24, 1841, and to the resulting greater freedom of the press. 

. The cankers of the Mosel region. 

. The vampires of the Mosel region. 

Proposals for a remedy. 

FOO wD 

A